Apple has issued a stark warning that the EU’s desire to increase the interoperability of iOS could damage iPhone owner’s privacy.
In a new white paper, the company has pointed the finger squarely at Facebook owner Meta. It says Meta would have the run of many of Apple’s key proprietary technologies if the EU is able to expand the Digital Markets Act to ensure Apple opens up.
AirTags hit new low price in the US
A four-pack of Apple’s AirTag trackers is down to $69.99 at Amazon US which is a record low price. You’ll usually pay $99.
It would enable Meta to “alter functionality in a way that raises concerns about the privacy and security of users.” It says that no company has made more requests than Meta to access Apple’s technology stack, Reuters reports.
Meta wants access to functionality like AirPlay, CarPlay, iPhone Mirroring, Messaging, Continuity Camera and loads more. Apple reckons, if the EU’s goals are achieved, companies like Meta “may attempt to abuse” the new laws. It says the “abuse of the DMA’s interoperability mandate could expose your private information.”
If the plans come to fore, Apple says iPhone users would essentially live in a new world where Meta could “see every phone call they make or receive, track every app that they use, scan all of their photos, look at their files and calendar events, log all of their passwords, and more.”
Apple warned that: “If a user asks Siri to read out loud the latest message received via WhatsApp, Meta or other third parties could indirectly gain access to the contents of the message. No one is in a position to understand the full risks of that.”
Interestingly, Apple reckons Meta doesn’t even need this access and says the interoperability requests are “completely unrelated to the actual use of Meta external devices, such as Meta smart glasses and Meta Quests.”
Meta shot back this week, with spokesperson Andy Stone commenting: “Here’s what Apple is actually saying: they don’t believe in interoperability. In fact, every time Apple is called out for anticompetitive behaviour, they defend themselves on privacy grounds that have no basis in reality.”
